White House Pushes for Warrantless Access to Internet Records

[IndianaGreen]

Published on Thursday, July 29, 2010 by The Raw Story

White House Pushes for Warrantless Access to Internet Records

Attorney speculates data could include Facebook friend requests

by Muriel Kane

The White House has asked Congress to make it possible for the FBI to demand that Internet service providers turn over customers' records in cases involving terrorism or other intelligence issues without first obtaining a court order.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act currently states that companies are required to provide basic subscriber data to the FBI, but lists only the four kinds of information that might be found on phone bills -- customer's name, address, length of service, and toll billing records.

In 2008, the Justice Department ruled that those four categories were "exhaustive," making some companies reluctant to provide any additional information. The proposed amendment would add the phrase "electronic communication transactional records" to the list in order to include the recipients of emails and when they were sent and received -- though not their content. It might also cover web browsing history.

The administration is describing the proposal as intended to prevent "confusion" on the part of service providers, but the Washington Post notes that "what officials portray as a technical clarification designed to remedy a legal ambiguity strikes industry lawyers and privacy advocates as an expansion of the power the government wields through so-called national security letters."

According to the Post, critics of the change say it would "greatly expand the amount and type of personal data the government can obtain without a court order" and represents "another example of an administration retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in relation to national security."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/29-3

[Forkboy]

1. I'm all for this as it has a "D" in front of it.

[villager]

3. yes! We're headed toward the *good* kind of police state!

n/t

[golfguru]

60. LOL

[racaulk]

4. If you don't support this, you want Sarah Palin to be President.

And I don't hear you clapping.

[Forkboy]

6. Part of me does, just for the comedic value.

:evilgrin:

[Ignis]

7. Clapping is just sensible business practice!

[awoke_in_2003]

43. you are hearing the sound...

of one hand clapping.

[woo me with science]

12. Touche. nt

[Exilednight]

18. LOL.

[democrat2thecore]

17. Exactly. Totally different from what Obama said while campaigning -nt

[Jakes Progress]

55. You just don't understand 3 dimensional checkers.

See. He says one thing and doesn't do exactly the opposite of the thing that he wanted you to know that he meant when he didn't say what he did.

Or something like that. Anyway. We're the good guys. Right?

[Fearless]

62. +1

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nmbluesky]

5. oh shit

I stop to use the DU anymore..
because fascist Obama watch us on DU
:sarcasm:

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[democrat2thecore]

14. Try this Obama answer to the Boston Globe in 2007.......

Boston Globe Question 10:
Is there any executive power the Bush administration has claimed or exercised that you think is unconstitutional? Anything you think is simply a bad idea?

First and foremost, I agree with the Supreme Court's several decisions rejecting the extreme arguments of the Bush Administration, most importantly in the Hamdi and Hamdan cases. I also reject the view, suggested in memoranda by the Department of Justice, that the President may do whatever he deems necessary to protect national security, and that he may torture people in defiance of congressional enactments. In my view, torture is unconstitutional, and certain enhanced interrogation techniques like "waterboarding" clearly constitute torture. And as noted, I reject the use of signing statements to make extreme and implausible claims of presidential authority.

Some further points:

The detention of American citizens, without access to counsel, fair procedure, or pursuant to judicial authorization, as enemy combatants is unconstitutional.

Warrantless surveillance of American citizens, in defiance of FISA, is unlawful and unconstitutional. (Bold is my emphasis.)

The violation of international treaties that have been ratified by the Senate, specifically the Geneva Conventions, was illegal (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

The creation of military commissions, without congressional authorization, was unlawful (as the Supreme Court held) and a bad idea.

I believe the Administration's use of executive authority to over-classify information is a bad idea. We need to restore the balance between the necessarily secret and the necessity of openness in our democracy - which is why I have called for a National Declassification Center.

EDIT: Source is Boston Globe December 20, 2007. Here is "Barack Obama's Q&A":
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

[Ignis]

30. Thanks for posting that.

:argh:

[Exilednight]

9. No Democrat can defend this and keep a straight face. n/t

[awoke_in_2003]

44. Depends on what you mean by democrat...

the real definition or what they call "new democrat". The party is going to shit for sure.

[terrya]

10. This is bad. This is indefensible.

This is Bush/Cheney, circa 2004.

There is no excuse for a Democratic administration to push this.

[democrat2thecore]

13. Obama promised to restore lost civil liberties & spoke out against expansion of surveillance powers

All was going to be done within FISA laws.

This takes the cake as far as I'm concerned.

[sabrina 1]

15. I agree, the hits keep coming. I'm trying to stay on board

because the alternative is so bad, but every day it becomes harder and harder. I know when he voted for the FISA bill, I nearly gave up on him then, but Hillary was for the Iraq war and I was swayed by thinking that once we won, they start fixing things. This is NOT fixing things.

Rec'd to counter the obvious obvious attempt to hide the truth, painful though it is.

[Exilednight]

16. I rec'd this, too, but there's a group out there who keep unrecing in order to bury it. n/t

[sabrina 1]

22. Who are these people? Seriously. I've been online for nearly ten

years now, since the beginning of the Bush administration, and I've been on rightwing and left boards. I found this kind of attempt to bury the truth on rightwing boards all the time. They would stop at nothing to cover up any negative story about Bush.

But until recently, I rarely ever saw that on Democratic boards. No matter how disappointing the story, democrats wanted to know the truth.

I have noticed on this board and on one or two others claiming to be progressive, that there are now some very rightwing views and similar attempts to cover up the truth.

This is not acceptable as far as I am concerned. If I wanted to be a rightwinger who cares more about our team than this country, I would be posting on a rightwing board. This is not the first thread that I saw this happen in today.

Now, I feel obligated to copy and paste this story and send it to my email list. If someone wants to hide it this badly, it seems to me that is all the more reason to make sure they do not succeed.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

27. It's being unrecc'd because it's bullshit....

The rules would allow the FBI to monitor e-mail traffic and not the contents of the e-mails themselves. This is something that the FBI does all the time in order to detect wire fraud.

The Bush Administration argued back in 2007 that the government should be allowed to view the actual contents of electronic communications. This legislation would prevent that -- so it's actually walking back from what the Bush Administration proposed.

And the other "potential" abuses are the speculation from people who either a) having actually read the statute or b) like getting their name in print.

[IndianaGreen]

32. Senator Leahy disagrees with your point of view

Go to link in post by Jefferson23:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x392877#393503

[SunsetDreams]

34. That appears to be a partial quote,

got a link to the full quote?

[Exilednight]

36. That excuse is total bullshit......

First off, if you read the article, this has been going on for a while. Bush wanted the ability to read e-mails, but he didn't get what he wanted. Basically, a FISA letter forces companies to provide the e-mail IP address, and the names of the sender and receiver along with physical address, but the FBI can not request the actual body of the e-mail.

Second, your wire fraud comment is totally false. Wires are conducted through the banking routing system, not through e-mail. Any wire transfer over $10,000 that is either entering, leaving, or within US borders must be reported to the IRS. This was instituted when raygun declared a "war on drugs" to ensure that the money was not being laundered by drug cartels. Also, anyone depositing $10,000 or more in cash at a US bank must fill out several forms that report the information to the IRS, and the same is true for anyone making a cash purchase in a retail outlet.

Thirdly, Obama campaigned to end warrantless wiretapping, not to put a finer point on it.

Many Obama supporters on here often quoted Franklin when it came to this issue, but now they are surprisingly quiet.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

53. Still bullshit

I read the article, thanks much.

And to use your phrase, "this has been going on for a while," which means that it is nothing new. And as I said, and which you don't seem to understand, the FBI has had a longstanding ability to monitor electronic communications -- but just the traffic and not the content. And the government DOES have the authority to monitor your mail -- but just where it's coming from or going to and not the content. The government also has the authority to monitor your phone calls -- but just your phone traffic and not the content of your communications. This simiply puts electronic mail on the same footing as any other communication.

This is not permission wiretap without a warrant. Please learn the difference between the two before your next bloviation.

[Exilednight]

54. You're arguing that it's okay for Obama to invade privacy because Bush did it ..................

which is just unfuckingbelievable.

This is wrong on so many levels. While someone might be able to make a moral argument for it, no one in their right mind can make an ethical argument for it.

I can't believe the day has come that people here on DU and those calling themselves Democrats are arguing for the unPATRIOT act.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

56. No, that's not what I'm arguing at all...

I'm SAYING that what the FBI is asking for is a clarification to an existing law (from 1993 -- which predates the widespread use of email) that allows them to monitor (but not intercept or read) email traffic. Just as the FBI can monitor, but not intercept your mail or your telephone calls.

BUSH wanted the authority to intercept and read emails without a warrant, what the Obama Administration is seeking is just the ability to monitor the traffic.

[Exilednight]

59. "JUST" the ability? Well, if that's all then why don't we argue for the permission ..............

to have tracking devices installed on our individual person so they can track us from place to place, but not give them the power to see what we do once we get there?

And that's not what this is about. FISA is only suppose to be used on foreign individuals, NOT US CITIZENS.

And if you really read the article, you would of seen this part:

"According to the Post, critics of the change say it would "greatly expand the amount and type of personal data the government can obtain without a court order" and represents "another example of an administration retreating from campaign pledges to enhance civil liberties in relation to national security."

"You're bringing a big category of data -- records reflecting who someone is communicating with in the digital world, Web browsing history and potentially location information -- outside of judicial review," former Clinton administration Justice Department lawyer Michael Sussman told the Post."


But you're right, it's nothing to really worry about. Besides, what could Obama really do about national security letters. I mean seriously, Congress will just get in the way and prevent him from making changes to them. It's not like he has any real power.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

61. Are you on any particular medication for this condition?

FISA has provided for surveillance of US citizens suspected of terrorism since its inception. Your rantings notwithstanding, this is a lot of breathless hysteria over nothing.

And again, I did read the article and I have absolutely no interest in what "professional critics" of this administration (like you) have to say on the subject -- particularly since, as I've said TWICE before, what the Obama Administration is asking for is LESS THAN what the Bush Administration demanded. This is neither new nor is it expansive.

It's a clarification of what the rules are on this subject.

[Exilednight]

63. Thanks for pointing out that you know nothing about the history of FISA. It's been around .........

since the 70s and was never used between two US entities until Bush pushed for it.

Sadly, Obama promised to stop this action, but now all he wants to do is put a finer point on it.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

66. It's been around since 1978, actually....

And the original legislation was written by Ted Kennedy. Surprised?

And it's purpose was to end the Nixon-era illegal wiretapping by the government. Surprised?

Seriously. Do you ever even ATTEMPT to understand what you're talking about before you post? Is this some sort e-Tourette's with you?

Never used? Guess again.

[Exilednight]

70. It was used, but not between two US entities. The F in FISA stands for foreign. Honestly, do

you ever do your research before attacking? It was designed to intercept Foreign Intelligence, not domestic.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

72. Read the statute...

I specifically allows for surveillance of US citizens.

[Exilednight]

73. The original statute only allowed for surveillance of US citizens if one of the entities ...........

was outside the US. The only exception was if one of the two entities was a non-US citizen residing within the US.

But in the original statute it was NEVER designed to be used between two US citizens within US borders.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

74. So to summarize

As I've been saying all along, the original statute provides for surveillance of US citizens. In the amended version, it allows for surveillance even if both parties are US citizens, provided the FBI has reason to suspect that both parties are a security risk.

Because it would be patently stupid for the FBI to allow special protections for Al-Queda operatives to communicate openly just because they both happened to be U.S. citizens. Or to protect the privacy of known militia members who are planning a terrorist attack because they happen to be citizens.

[Xenotime]

78. I guess you don't see how this protects people and keeps them safe.

Bush/Cheney was to generate more war when they did it. This is bringing peace. BIG difference.

[democrat2thecore]

11. READ THIS (Important)

Explain this action with Barack Obama's position as he laid it out in December of 2007:
http://www.onemillionstrong.us/diary/492/

This is another........okay, I'll be nice. Just add this to a very long list.

Note on edit: This is from a person who was supporting Kucinich at the time. I only want you to read Obama's first couple of answers and tell me how it can match up with his administrations action on this surveillance issue.

Another EDIT: Here is the original source!! Boston Globe December 20, 2007 "Barack Obama's Q&A"
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

Explain THIS one away!

[ibegurpard]

19. Oh, it's all just a misunderstanding on our part

or something..

[bvar22]

20. Its only been 18 months,

and you can't just turn a ship....or something,
and its CHESS....
Thats IT....He is playing Chess, and mere mortals can't be expected to comprehend his god-like brilliance.

For comparison, here is a video of Campaign Obama:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-15-2010/respect-my-authoritah

[IndianaGreen]

24. We must be sensible about this!

Pragmatic!

Freedom is slavery!

[moksha]

52. Wow. What a failure on civil liberties.

[Jefferson23]

21. It says "trust me" all over it. n/t

[Amonester]

23. But he will not be President for life, so what if ...

numbeR 45 (or 46, or more...) steals it? :scared: :banghead:

[Jefferson23]

26. Of course, that is why there must be at the very least a warrant.

The trust me, I'll keep you safe and won't abuse you is nonsense. This is another power grab pure and simple.

[zulchzulu]

25. As Feingold said about the Patriot Act: "Whatever happened to using a judge?"

This is disappointing and should be reversed.

[Exilednight]

48. This is sad when you really think about it. Obama is suppose to be a constitutional scholar. n/t

[IndianaGreen]

57. Ordering the assassination of Americans is an abuse of power

high crimes according to the US Constitution.

[Xenotime]

79. Remember: The Consititution is a document of negative liberties.

[Jefferson23]

28. Senator Patrick J. Leahy,

Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Thursday that the proposal raised “serious privacy and civil liberties concerns.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/30/us/30fbi.html?_r=1&ref=charlie_savage


The proposal is outrageous, we'll see how much push back we get from good guys like Leahy.

[Ignis]

39. Thanks for the quote.

:kick:

[budkin]

29. Obama specifically campaigned against this shit... what the hell is going on??

[court jester]

37. He campaigned against Mandatory Health insurance too

what is going on is apparently it doesn't matter what he said during his campaign

So why should anyone believe anything he says now?

[area51]

81. +1 (n/t)

[awoke_in_2003]

45. The Who summed it up pretty well

in "Won't Get Fooled Again"

[havocmom]

31. too late to Rec, they kept if off the greatest page, but keep it kicked

and for honesty's sake, get screen shots before this gets disappeared.

[Ignis]

35. Here's another.

:kick:

[havocmom]

38. Keep it kicked

until we get a justification for Obama administration out bushing bush

[Stoic]

33. I can't wait until we elect a Democrat to the White House and end these abuses.

Oh, wait.

[depakid]

40. You mean a former adjunct constitutional professor- he'll set things right at the DOJ

[treestar]

41. Congress doesn't have to pass it

And as you've pointed out tirelessly, Obama is too weak a leader to arm twist to get what he wants.

It would take hours to figure out what is really going on here, and jumping to the conclusions you want is not justified here. Except for those who already want to jump to those conclusions.

[Steely_Dan]

46. Hey Treestar...

...long time.

[treestar]

51. How ya doin'?

How's that slope soaring going? :hi:

[spoony]

64. Pretty weak, but at least you tried.

That should earn you at least a couple Chuckles points.

[awoke_in_2003]

42. "I tip my hat to the new revolution" nt

[Ross K]

47. Bush-league

:banghead:

[old mark]

49. If this is enacted, it will be used against anyone the government does not like

at the moment, as is the "Patriot" Act and lots of the HSA fascistic unconstitutional shit law that SHOULD HAVE BEEN overturned by our President.

"Fired UP?"

Not so much, no...


mark

[Safetykitten]

50. It's my team doing it, so it's OK.

[LittleBlue]

58. How Bushian

Second verse, same as the first

[DailyGrind51]

65. But, if "they" ever take the White House again, "we" are fucked!

"They" are not likely to abandon this access, power is never given away easily.

[Exilednight]

71. Neither is Obama, apparently. n/t

[DailyGrind51]

75. "They" seldom do, regardless of Party affiliation, unfortunately.

[Kurovski]

67. Aren't a lot of teenagers and oversea hackers already doing that job?

[Exilednight]

80. Yep, and pretty soon they will figure out that they can get paid by the government to do it. n/t

[TheKentuckian]

68. Kick for the way it really is

[Jakes Progress]

69. Kick for truth.

Even though it stings the unreccers like a sum bitch.

[Barack2theFuture]

76. Gotta love those authoritarian conservatives

(as long as they lied to the local authorities and registered as a "democrat.")

[Eyerish]

77. Kick because I can no longer Rec...